Ham radio is gonna be flushed big time if this is all you old farts are
worried about.

Brenda Ann wrote:
There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and memorizing
specific answers to specific questions. The former is called learning, and
can be applied to many situations. The latter is called laziness, and
teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

That is just hair-splitting. For instance, the first question
in my 2000 Extra Class License Manual is: What exclusive
frequency privileges in the 80-meter band are authorized to
Extra class control operators?

Of the four choices, the correct answer is 3500-3525 kHz.

Now what formula or method will yield the correct answer?
I simply memorized that specific answer to that specific
question. The moral is: "Work smarter, not harder!"
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Showing that you DON'T know the difference.

I personally don't care why the unit of resistance
is named the ohm.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion.

I do know the difference but the point is that I do not
*need* to know the history behind that particular choice.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:18:17 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
One doesn't, but "first principles" has nothing to do with this
discussion - a fact you still don't understand.
There's two ways to learn: 1. Memorize knowledge, 2. develop
knowledge from first principles.

Which has nothing to do with the difference between memorizing answers
and learning theory.

If you are learning theory that someone has already developed,
you *are* memorizing answers. I *memorized* Ohm's law for my
Novice exam. I *memorized* the fact that 'I' is the letter
used for current.

If you are not memorizing answers provided by the people who
developed the theory, then you are necessarily developing the
theory from first principles.

Avoiding memorizing answers to questions is a good way to
keep making the same mistakes over and over. Do you avoid the
Q&A sections of all web pages for fear that you might accidentally
memorize an answer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Al Klein wrote:
I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

That fact goes against your "memorizing is evil" argument.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and memorizing
specific answers to specific questions. The former is called learning,
and can be applied to many situations. The latter is called laziness, and
teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

--
Say no to institutionalized interference.
Just say NO to HD/IBOC!


Which is exactly what "I" also have said. They're splitting hairs over the
definition. MANY words can be used in more than one way. Your example is
resembling mine. There are some things (many actually) you must "memorize"
(learn) for life - to function. To simply "memorize" answers for a test - as
you said, teaches NOTHING. It doens't even guarantee passing. I've seen a
few fail by that method. IT simply is NOT a good way to go about things in
life. Laziness gets you no where - fast.

L.

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and memorizing
specific answers to specific questions. The former is called learning, and
can be applied to many situations. The latter is called laziness, and
teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

You must be at least 6 years old, Brenda Ann - Cecil can't seem to
make that distinction.

So exactly what is the "formula or method" for determining Extra
frequency privileges outside of memorizing them? I was too lazy
to use a formula so I just memorized only what I needed to know
for my Extra exam. I still don't know all the Extra frequencies
for all the bands. Since Extras have all frequency privileges,
I don't really need to know where those frequencies are.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
Brenda Ann wrote:
There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and
memorizing specific answers to specific questions. The former is called
learning, and can be applied to many situations. The latter is called
laziness, and teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

That is just hair-splitting. For instance, the first question
in my 2000 Extra Class License Manual is: What exclusive
frequency privileges in the 80-meter band are authorized to
Extra class control operators?

Of the four choices, the correct answer is 3500-3525 kHz.

Now what formula or method will yield the correct answer?
I simply memorized that specific answer to that specific
question. The moral is: "Work smarter, not harder!"
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In the example YOU give - Cecil - it could be taken either way. In the case
of the "frequencies" you're to operate on for a given license and band -
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory) those
frequencies - for the exam purposes and just refer to a chart from there in.
OR you COULD "memorize" them (actually committing to memory) for the purpose
of NOT having to use a chart! However, once you use those frequencies after
a while - especially if active - then you "would" tend to "memorize" (for
life) those frequencies. Yes, it is definately splitting hairs!

L.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Fri, Aug 11 2006 1:09 pm
Email: Dave Heil
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy



Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

I fear that Leonard H. Anderson will go to his reward without ever
having obtained an amateur radio license.


Oh, no, Kernal Klink is trying to manufacture a "motive" of
his own imagining. Tsk, tsk. He gets it WRONG.

What's not wrong is that you aren't involved in amateur radio at all.

Klink, can't you get ANYTHING right?

I've already gotten it right. You aren't a participant in amateur radio
and you'll likely never be a participant in amateur radio. It really is
that simple.

My purpose in here is trying to get the morse code test(s)
reduced to zero. It is down to just 1 now.

Bully for you.

Tell us all (from your imagination) why one "should" get
an amateur radio license.

"One" should never if he has no interest in doing so.

I am a professional in
electronics, have had my Commercial license since 1956,
am retired from a career in aerospace electronics with
a nice income.

Bully for you. What has that to do with amateur radio?

I don't NEED a ham license...

No one needs an amateur radio license for his existence. No one should
obtain one if he doesn't want such a license. In you, we have someone
who neither needs nor wants an amateur radio license and who spends his
time in an amateur radio newsgroup, advocating changes in an endeavor in
which he is not a participant and has no intention of becoming a
participant.

nor am I trying to get one.

No kidding. You've not been trying to get one for well over a decade now.

I'm trying to change the federal law concerning all
ham-hobbyists being required to test for morse in this
advanced time of the new millennium.

Why?

Not to worry, Klink, I'll be watching the US Post Office
walls for YOUR "reward." :-)

You do that. I'm sure that you have lots of time to stand around in
post offices.


Someone who has been a regular worker in electronics (radio is a
subset of electronics) ought to damn well know and recognize
that the state of the art in electronics has been CONSTANTLY
changing. It's sometimes a chore to keep up, whether it be
1950 or 2000 or any time in-between.

Don't let us stop you from tending to your chores, Len.


BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

You couldn't possible do that. :-)

I couldn't "possible"?

I don't suppose I could possibly be responsible for keeping you from
your chores. After all, you're already hangin' out and doin' nuttin'.



When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist Morseodists
must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn...

That's all you've done since your recent reappearance here, Major Hoople.


Oh, poor baby! Colonel Klink is bent out of shape because
no one loves and adores him and his morsemanship? Tsk, tsk.

No one? How do you know, Leonard? Poor baby, tsk, tsk and a Hey-Nani-Nani.



Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.

Obtaining an amateur radio license *is* work, Len.


How much DOES it pay?

It doesn't pay anything, as you know. "Work" is not defined by payment.


Some of the amateur radio activities we partcipate in are *are* work.


Minimum wage?

Much, much less.


The work isn't compensated.


Awwwwwww! Imagine that, a NON-professional amateur! :-)

Redundancy is your specialty.

You keep right on looking down your Imperial nose at all us
who aren't federally licensed as super-dooper morsemen.

Morsemen? Hell, you aren't a radio amateur of any kind.

It
makes you feel all warm and toasty, does it?

None of my neighbors are licensed amateur radio ops, Len. That they
have no amateur radio license bothers me not in the least. Why is
"Imperial" capitalized?

I'll bet you
run around and make like a Prussian feldoffizier to all
other hams not wanting morse. "For the "love of it?" :-)

You aren't another ham, Len.



It is performed for the love of it. If you ever hope to
obtain an amateur radio license, you'll have to indulge in some
ordinary, plebian work.


No, I won't, Kernal Klunk.

Yes, you would.

I didn't parlay a disk jockey job into fleecing the State
Department in being resident ham DX.

That makes two of us.

Cushy.

Which part?

Now you are
getting a pension for all that "hard work."

How about that!

Taxpayers are
paying you.

What of it?

Hardly "plebian" of YOU, is it?

It is as plebian as anyone else who receives a pension for his work.

But, having NO answers to my remarks, you made up a lot of
scurrilous snit on your own. "For the love of it?"

I didn't make up any of it, Len.

Must have been...it sure as hell had NO ring of "diplomacy" to
it.

I looked at your newsgroup re-entry and patterned myself after your warm
and avuncular style.

Didn't learn much about diplomacy at State, Klank?

I learned quite a bit. Sometimes there's a carrot and stick. Sometimes
there's just a carrot. Sometimes there's just a stick.

Next time, Coolonell, try TRY to answer some of the topics
that were addressed...even if NOT to you.

What topics were addressed to you by Al Klein when you decided to make
your views known? What topics were addressed to you by K4YZ when you
decided to make your views known?

Do it "for the
love of it."

I delight at getting under your thin skin--for the love of it.

Fork you, you're done...

I'm not nearly done, kindly old, uninvolved old timer.

Dave K8MN

L. wrote:
Laziness gets you no where - fast.

Laziness allows one to achieve a goal by the most efficient
route. Some famous German military leader said he would
lots rather have brilliant and lazy officers than ambitious
and stupid ones. I personally would rather see brilliant
and lazy amateur radio operators than ambitious and stupid
ones hanging on for dear life to an obsolete testing
requirement.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

L. wrote:
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory)

Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:
"memorize - to commit to memory". *Everything* that one
memorizes is the act of committing something to memory. You
definitely need to pick a different word than "memorize"
to describe the concept you are trying to present. Memorizing
is how human beings remember things and it is a good thing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp